Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau arrives to deliver a statement before the start of a Liberal caucus meeting on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, June 1, 2016. (Chris Wattie/Reuters)

When Justin Trudeau admitted that his government was screwing up the electoral reform file, my first thought was of Steph Curry, the once underrated player on the Golden State Warriors who has transformed the game of basketball. Like Curry, who deploys the high-risk three-point shot the way other players rely on the conservative layup, Trudeau is changing how the political game is played and putting massive poll numbers up on the board.

“We were perhaps behaving in a way that was resembling more the previous government,” Trudeau told stunned reporters as he explained that he would cede to opposition requests to more fairly distribute seats on his electoral reform committee—a sudden and surprising climbdown. Did Trudeau just compare himself to Stephen Harper? Yes, he did. This was after he’d already reversed course on the assisted-dying bill’s Motion 6, which would have limited opposition debate. And after he’d apologized—numerous times—for the infamous elbow incident. Trudeau was just doing what he has done since the campaign: breaking the five cardinal rules of political communication.

1. The flip-flop rule: Reversing decisions makes you look indecisive. Stick to your promises or people will stop trusting you.

2. The loser rule: Never repeat your negatives because you end up validating them. It goes without saying that you don’t compare yourself to the man you just defeated.

4. The message-control rule: Never let the opposition or caucus take over the agenda. Leaders control; leaders look strong.

5. The wimp rule: Never give in to the opposition’s criticisms. Their job is to oppose. Your job is to lead.

Stephen Harper codified these into a form of political brutalism. “The standard Tory-machine approach to public messaging involved defining a simple storyline, driving that storyline in all places and on all occasions, never wavering from the message and the mass disciplined dissemination of that narrative through numerous channels,” Tim Powers, the vice-chairman of Summa Strategies told me. Sometimes it worked. When Harper first came to power, he had a “promise made, promise kept” mantra. But that didn’t last. “As the credibility of the Conservatives was wearing thin, the automaton sales pitch was also losing its gloss,” Powers says. “Trudeau gambled that a little bit of vulnerability and appearance of humanity was a better potion—he was proven right.”

It was more than just a bit of vulnerability. During the campaign, the Liberals released an ad where Trudeau broke the loser rule and repeated the negative about his inexperience: “Stephen Harper says I’m not ready.” The Conservatives were thrilled. But instead of backfiring, it was a hit.

Look at the debate swirling around Canada’s CF-18 jets. Trudeau’s government is openly flouting the flip-flop rule. The Liberals promised to have an open and transparent competition to find a new jet, but now the government is preparing to sole-source the Super Hornet, exactly what Liberals criticized the Conservatives for doing with the F-35. I suspect they will back down in some fashion—after all, that’s the pattern. Will the deficit be $10 billion this year as promised? No. Way bigger. Did the government get 25,000 Syrian refugees in by Christmas? No. Will the Liberals settle the lawsuit with wounded veterans over the government’s alleged obligation to them, as they promised? Nope. This week, the six veterans are back in court. Why isn’t any of this hurting the party?

The answer is the authenticity gap. Trudeau’s great political insight is that people prefer an authentic response over a scripted one, even if it breaks a promise. “Younger voters want a more authentic and real connection to the people they are voting for,” says Ian Capstick, the founder of Mediastyle. “When everybody has the same ability to ‘control the message’ through social media, the ability to lose control of the message becomes the professional’s move.” In other words, less control is more.

Politics is not so different to sports. In 2010, the Golden State Warriors, a loser franchise, was bought by a group of Silicon Valley data junkies. As the Wall Street Journal pointed out in a fascinating article, the new owners saw an underused part of the game: the three-point shooting line. Established in 1979, the line was meant to reward high-risk shots with one extra point. Until recently, only 22 per cent of shots taken in a game were from behind the three-point line. But the Warriors owners found the difference in success rates between shooting a bit inside the line and a bit outside the line was minuscule. The results, however, were game-changing. As Ben Cohen writes: “By moving back just a few inches before shooting, a basketball player could improve his rate of return by 43 per cent.”

That changed everything. This year, Curry sunk 402 three-point shots. The former record was 286—which he also held. His team broke the record for most wins in the regular season in NBA history.

Is the authenticity gap the political equivalent of the three-point shot? Maybe. Every time Trudeau fades back and launches another of his high-risk moon shots—legalizing pot, pricing carbon, buying navy ships, changing the way elections are won—you think he’s going to fail.

There are misses, for sure, lots of them, as Trudeau is the first to admit. But when he scores, he scores big. The age of political incrementalism, the policy layup shot, is over. Trudeau is breaking the rules and hitting all net. See you in the second quarter.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/multimedia/video/a-qa-with-turkish-ambassador-selcuk-unal/feed/0‘We have to have change’: Q&A with Perry Bellegardehttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/we-have-to-have-change-qa-with-perry-bellegarde/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/we-have-to-have-change-qa-with-perry-bellegarde/#respondSun, 04 Oct 2015 14:12:46 +0000http://www.macleans.ca/?p=764691For the record, AFN National Chief Perry Bellegarde speaks about his hopes for a breaking point this election

AFN National Chief Perry Bellegarde speaks at a news conference in Ottawa on Friday, Feb. 27, 2015 following the National Roundtable on Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. (Adrian Wyld/CP)

Earlier this week, Maclean’s reporter Scott Gilmore wrote a column asking why Canadians have been silent on Aboriginal issues during this election. After reading the column, Perry Bellegarde, National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, spoke with Evan Solomon on his radio show, Everything is Political. A transcript of the interview follows. You can also listen to the audio here.

Evan Solomon: Last night we spoke to Scott Gilmore and (Mi’kmaw citizen) Pam Palmater about the missing issue in this campaign: First Nations, aboriginal issues—tragedy unfolding before our eyes as we talk about the niqab and all these other issues. Gilmore, in a very provocative column for Maclean’s, essentially said, “why aren’t we talking about the fact that so many First Nations children are going hungry, dying, assaulted?” Since the campaign dropped, he has a series of figures that are startling and shocking, in Maclean’s magazine.

Joining me now to talk about that and why – he originally told us on this program that 51 ridings could change by the First Nations aboriginal vote – National Chief Perry Bellegarde joins me now. National Chief, it’s great to have you back on the program.

Perry Bellegarde: Glad to be on again, Evan. How are you?

Solomon: I’m very good, I’m very good. When we last spoke, you were thinking about not voting. Things changed. Now you say you will vote. What changed your mind?

Bellegarde: Basically talking to our chiefs and our leadership back home and our elders – the ones I always listen to and get guidance from – and even the youth. I went back home and they said, “look, you’re trying to mobilize the vote, Chief Perry. It’s important that you show some leadership and exercise your personal sovereignty and vote.” And that’s why I listened to that advice and guidance, so I will be voting on Oct. 19. It’s too important an election not to bring about change. We have to have change.

Solomon: About the statistics of, since the writ has dropped, what’s happened. And what he’s essentially saying is that we’re ignoring a tragedy that’s unfolding to fellow Canadians. And then the question is, why aren’t we paying attention? What do you say to that?

Bellegarde: Well a lot of it, again, his article is very compelling. He’s pointing out very clearly that there’s a travesty happening right in our own backyard here in Canada. He talks about, the stats he uses are: life expectancy is five to seven years lower than the national average; infant mortality rate is one and a half times higher than the national average; half of our children live in poverty, which is more than double the national average. There’s 40,000 children living in foster care, and there’s 132 First Nations communities on boiled water advisories, you know. We’re 4.3 per cent of the population; 25 per cent of the jails are filled with our people. And our youth suicide numbers are five to seven times higher than the national average, and yes, even all these stats, there’s 1,200 missing murdered indigenous women and girls. It’s probably higher than that. The stats are there—

Solomon: And yeah—

Bellegarde: He says, why aren’t we in the rest of the country paying attention to that?

Solomon: He says that we—here, I’ll read you an excerpt from this article. “The last 60 days have not been as fortunate. If it’s a typical eight weeks in Canada, 1,425 aboriginal kids dropped out of school, three times the national average,” as you say. “Since the campaign began, 45 aboriginal children died in infancy. They would’ve lived longer if they’d been born in Sri Lanka. 1,074 aboriginal children, 6,265 aboriginal women sexually assaulted since the writ was dropped. 33,500 violently victimized, 182 committed suicide, eight times the national rate.” The question is, National Chief, are we not talking about this because we’re numb to it? Are we not talking about it because there’s a racist issue here? Are we not talking about this because we just don’t care? What is it?

Bellegarde: A combination of all the above. Society still views First Nations in a very negative light in this country; you know, you still talk about First Nations issues and people don’t look at it in a very positive light. They still have their racial and negative stereotype about First Nations people, that they’re dumb, stupid, lazy, drunk on welfare, and they’re a burden to society. That’s the attitude, and that’s what persists right across Canada. That’s what has to be addressed. So even when we start talking about how do we change that, we start talking about reconciliation, we start talking about peaceful coexistence, you know if people would start getting, making room in their minds, hearts and spirits, you know, to get rid of those misconceptions and racial stereotypes, there might be more room for compassion and caring and understanding and validation of our languages and our peoples as people.

On getting out the vote

Solomon: Well what happened, voter turnout for First Nations – you and I keep speaking about this all the time – is low. You told me that you could target 51 ridings across this country. There’s a map of those 51 ridings. The question is, in two weeks, will the aboriginal vote flip any ridings? Can you get that vote out? Can you mobilize? What’s going to happen there?

Bellegarde: Well we’re hoping to get the vote out for sure. We have a couple of campaigns, Rock the Vote, you know, happening in Manitoba, Rock the Vote on the East Coast. You know, they’re using social media because we can influence those 51 ridings and decide who gets elected. Any future Member of Parliament, any future leader must be concerned about these issues we just talked about because it’s really in the best interest of Canada to close that gap that exists—

Solomon: I agree, but if they don’t pay an electoral price—

Bellegarde: There’s no question—

Solomon: Okay you’re trying, but if, can, this is why the key is – and you know – strategists are going to listen to you, National Chief, and they’re going to say, well he says that, but can he actually mobilize? If you can put 5,000 people in the get-out-the-vote, you know riding, man you’ve got influence, you can do whatever you want, people will listen to you.

Bellegarde: Well, the basic strategy is we’re leaving it up to a lot of chiefs in council, we’re basically using social media, and if we can get the number up from 40 per cent, which is what has been there in the past, higher than that, that’s movement. You know, we’re trying to get everybody lighted up about this election on Oct. 19 as best we can, but we’re going to need not only our people, but Canadians can do their part as well. Make these issues we’re talking about election issues as well. Because it’s in the best interest of this country to close the gap. You know, and I always constantly say this: it’s sixth versus 63rd. Canada is rated sixth according to United Nations human development index. Sixth. A common index, quality of life. You apply those same indices to our people, we’re 63rd.

Solomon: Unbelievable.

Bellegarde: You know, even, so, even from an economic perspective, an economic viewpoint, it makes sense to invest in education and training and access to potable water and housing and proper healthcare because that means the gap will close—

Solomon: Yeah—

Bellegarde: And that’s really in the best interest of this country, and that’s what this election should be about, looking at it from an economic perspective.

Where’s the protest?

Solomon: Look at it from a human perspective. But National Chief, let me, let me ask you another question. Some have asked me this: “where’s the protest?” You’ve said there’s the logical argument is there, the rational, the human argument is there, the economic argument is there, the legal argument is there. But if you can’t get attention, where’s Idle No More? Do you need to take some kind of social action that gets the atten—? I mean, I’m not advocating it, I’m not even saying, it’s almost tragic that you have to resort to this kind of thing. But nonetheless, I remember when Idle No More, when we had chiefs that were on hunger strikes, guess what, there were meetings with the Prime Minster and the Governor General. Do you need that? Where is that?

Bellegarde: Bill C-38 and Bill C-45, that was the catalyst for Idle No More. You know, when the government unanimously passed legislation that made it a lot easier for industry and everybody else to hurt the land and water, you know they lessened those regulatory frameworks that were there, you know that was the catalyst, so people seized upon that. And there was a movement, it was almost like a coming together of elders and youth and on-reserve, off-reserve people. It wasn’t only First Nations people at Idle No More, it was non-indigenous people as well, and so the fire is there. I’m saying it’s now Oct. 19, we’re not a passive people, we’re a peaceful people no question, but at some point there is going to be a breaking point. People don’t know, and I don’t know as National Chief, where that point is going to be. You know, we are a people, and we want to get the people out to vote, and that can be a positive thing, in terms of a positive constructive way—

Solomon: Right—

Bellegarde: To bring about this—

Solomon: And a breaking point could come.

Bellegarde: Pardon me?

Solomon: A breaking point could come, you’re saying.

Bellegarde: Oh no, of course. Our young people expect and demand better. They’re not going to accept the status quo. They’re not going to accept communities where there are moldy schools, overcrowded schools. You know, our kids want the same thing as everybody else in Canada, a good decent education and a good decent place to live, and that really is not there now. We know all the negative statistics. We see them and hear them everyday.

Solomon: We’re talking about the niqab. We’re not talking about this. It’s unbelievable. And look, I, we’re talking about the niqab on this program, but we’re also talking about this. This is important. National Chief, before Oct. 19, would you come back and give us an update? We want to know. This is a critical issue. Please stay in touch with us. Keep us in this conversation. All of Canada wants to hear this.

Bellegarde: Of course I’ll come back and give an update. We’ve got a major gathering next Wednesday in Edmonton, you know, because there hasn’t been a lot of focus in these leaders debates, so we’re having our own AFN (Assembly of First Nations) forum next Wednesday in Edmonton. And Mr. Mulcair has agreed to come. We’re hoping that Mr. Trudeau will come, Mr. Harper will come. We’re trying to raise our issues into their consciences because it’s really in the best interest of society, of Canada as a whole to close that gap. We’re trying to get them to get that, but I’ll come on anytime you want.

Solomon: National Chief, Perry Bellegarde, who wants, by the way, a consortium debate with everybody. That debate is not going to happen. The last debate, the French language debate, which I know you’ll be watching closely, is on tonight. National Chief Perry Bellegarde, it is a pleasure to have you on everything as political. These are vital issues, I know you focus on them; we do too. Let’s keep this conversation going. Thanks for coming on, as always.

On Nov. 7, 2012, the day after Barack Obama’s re-election, Mark Carney was a guest on CBC’s Power and Politics with Evan Solomon. “Did you watch that last night?” Solomon asked the then-governor of the Bank of Canada, referring to Obama’s victory speech. “I watched you last night, Evan. I enjoyed it very much,” Carney responded, exuding the charm that has won him comparisons to Cary Grant. The two chatted amiably about the then-looming U.S. “fiscal cliff” before Carney handed Solomon a brand new polymer $20 bill. “I don’t get to keep this, I assume,” Solomon joked. “It depends on what questions you ask,” Carney shot back in jest. “It’s called payola, Evan.” When Carney asked for the note back, Solomon feigned indignation: “I lost my $20,” he said. “A journalist never gets rich.”

Three years ago, that kind of chummy banter between Solomon and his powerful guests was one of the reasons an audience of 90,000 tuned into the CBC News Network’s daily two-hour ﬂagship politics show. Of course, in the wake of Solomon’s abrupt firing last week—after the Toronto Starrevealed the CBC host parlayed his journalistic contacts and access for his own enrichment in a side business with Toronto art collector Bruce Bailey—the exchange bristles with obvious irony. The story reported that Solomon received a 10 per cent cut for steering clients to Bailey, a deal that earned him $300,000 in commissions, which were not fully disclosed to the buyers. One of these buyers was Carney, now governor of the Bank of England; Solomon pocketed 112.5 of those $20 bills in the process. The other was Jim Balsillie, co-founder of Research In Motion (BlackBerry).

The Solomon-Bailey partnership ended this spring amid legal rancour after Solomon sent Bailey a letter in February threatening legal action if he didn’t receive more than $1 million in unpaid commissions. The matter was settled out of court in early June. A week later, the Star ran its exposé. The story was explosive, even at a time when scandals involving CBC hosts are so commonplace that transgressions can be gauged on a sliding scale: unlike Jian Ghomeshi, who is facing criminal charges, there is no suggestion Solomon did anything illegal; nor does evidence exist that Solomon’s personal relationships influenced news coverage, unlike the allegations against Amanda Lang, host of The Exchange, who remains with the network. But an email trail between Solomon and Bailey that spelled out how the arrangement would play out—and in which Carney was code-named “the Guv” and Balsillie “Anka,” due to his perceived resemblance to singer Paul Anka—clearly violated a corporate code of ethics that states employees “must not use their positions to further their personal interests.” Never mind that Solomon, who covered Senate influence-peddling on a daily basis, presented himself as a naïf in the crossfire after his firing: “I did not view the art business as a conflict with my political journalism at the CBC and never intentionally used my position at the CBC to promote the business.”

Solomon’s case illustrates the ripple effect one stupid decision can have on an ecosystem. Not only did he lose his job and take a reputational hit—he was long seen as a possible heir apparent to Peter Mansbridge at The National—but it dragged a disparate cast of characters onto a messy canvas. There’s the beleaguered public broadcasting corporation trying to rebuild shattered credibility. There’s a former high-tech billionaire steering his legacy chapter away from his failures at BlackBerry to his new Centre for International Governance Innovation. There’s the central banker who famously called Bay Street “too materialistic” now being linked to a profiteering journalist at an inopportune time; the scandal broke days before Carney called for broader sanctions for financial market abusers and declared the “age of irresponsibility” over. And there’s the social gadfly art collector thrust into the spotlight he relishes.

Connecting them all is Solomon, the 47-year-old former wunderkind, a social progressive widely regarded as a “genuinely nice guy” suddenly cast as an opportunist, one who was out of a job, his Ottawa home listed for sale, his finances exposed in Frank magazine, his colleagues and friends expressing dismay and disappointment. “It’s so uncool,” says one, offering admonishment, albeit affectionate. “Bad, bad Evan.”

Erin Simkin

As an ‘it boy’ in 1990s Toronto, Evan Solomon was destined to cross paths with Bruce Bailey, an art collector known for surrounding himself with the fabulous, the famous, and about-to-be-famous. The two attended the same Power Plant gallery events, and Solomon, the co-founder of Shift, a magazine that chronicled digital culture as a contemporary of Wired, was a guest at the parties the collector threw for artists on the top floor of his five-storey College Street building, which served as his gallery/pied-à-terre. “Out of James Bond,” is how one guest describes it. “High ceilings, everything Mies van der Rohe, very New York penthouse.” Bailey, a lawyer-turned-investment banker in the 1980s, turned art collector in the 1990s—just as art became an asset class—had a knack for mixing the Westons and Belinda Stronach with emerging artists he supported, plus a rotating cast of “hot young twentysomethings,” as one friend puts it. And no one fit that description better than Solomon: “Evan was one of those guys that had golden boy written all over him—handsome, clever, tall—he couldn’t not succeed,” says a friend.

Bailey was an “access broker,” someone known to support emerging artists, either bringing them to parties or buying their work. That stable includes now-established artists, including filmmaker Bruce LaBruce, John Massey, Kent Monkman, Joanne Todd and Christopher Lori. “He is very generous and supportive and genuinely passionate about artists in Canada,” says RM Vaughan, a contributing editor to Canadian Art, who has covered the gallery scene for decades. Bailey, a fixture in the front row of fashion shows, was a regular on the international art circuit, showing up at the big art fairs in Venice and Miami. In 2010, Bailey and his husband, Alfredo Ferran Calle, were listed in New York magazine’s guest list, along with James Franco and Patti Smith, at the party to commemorate the end of Marina Abramovic’s exhibition at MoMA.

“Bruce is a classic art-world figure,” says Vaughan. “There have always been people with money, people who pay for things; the art world thrives on free drinks.”

News that Bailey and Solomon had struck up a professional partnership, however, surprised many. Bailey and Solomon present as a study in contrasts, though both were raised in upper-middle-class affluence (lawyer fathers, private schools). Solomon, too, had an interest in art, having grown up in a family “that was very passionate about art,” according to Toronto artist Charlie Pachter, who attended University of Toronto with Solomon’s mother, Virginia, and has known him since childhood. A former CBC colleague also recalls Solomon mentioning in the early 2000s he was starting an art business with his wife, Tammy Quinn. “I got the sense that she was the instigator,” says the colleague. “Evan said he was really interested and learning a lot. He was a self-styled collector.”

But Bailey, believed to be in his 60s, is known for excess and grand gestures, a man who costumes himself in head-to-toe Hedi Slimane or shows up at a gallery opening in a bespoke suit with a leather belt wrapped around his neck. “He’s un-Canadian in his willingness to be outrageous and conspicuous,” says a friend. “That is his calling card in a way.” “Our Gatsby,” an attendee at one of his parties swooned to The Globe and Mail, apparently as a compliment. Some close to him say Bailey is well-known for being mercurial. “He could be friendly one minute and insult you an hour later,” says a man who who had a falling out with Bailey years ago, but continues to socialize with him. While there is no question Bailey has a brilliant eye—discovering new artists, making careers—one man who knows them both says, “Going into business with a character like Bruce Bailey seems so off-brand for Evan.”

Solomon, a family man, exudes wholesome, athletic energy. He limits his sartorial flash to bright socks and ties, and actively downplays his affluence; earlier this year, he described his style to the Ottawa Citizen as “comfort, classic and affordable.” And his brand was, from the beginning, built on a stream of socially conscious projects directed at bettering the world, not his bottom line.

At Shift, which was sold in 1996, Solomon was known for spotting and nurturing new talent, including Sheila Heti and Chris Turner, and for “shaking up the established order,” as one man who worked with him put it. With his business partner, Andrew Heintzman, Solomon spearheaded a series of entrepreneurial ventures: a think tank that addressed AIDS and world hunger, books of essays about sustainable energy and food security. There was a 1999 novel, Crossing the Distance, and after he married Quinn, a former film production manager, and became a father, there were two children’sbooksso.

During his early television days, Solomon continued to be a conduit to a blossoming alternative culture. The CBC offered the perfect platform for his ideas and charisma. At the time the network was also betting on Jian Ghomeshi and George Stroumboulopoulos to appeal to a younger audience. Solomon etched out a place covering new ideas: he hosted The Changemakers, a series on new thinkers, Futureworld, a technology program, and Hot Type, a books show. His move to TV in the late 1990s didn’t surprise friends. “I think he found print journalism limiting,” says Barnaby Marshall, Slaight Music’s director of creative technology, who managed Shift’s website. “He’s built for TV—he’s good-looking, he’s articulate, he’s fast on his feet. He’s a great interviewer; he does push and doesn’t let people get away with stuff.”

Blair Gable/Reuters

In 2004, Solomon became co-anchor of CBC News: Sunday and CBC News: Sunday Night with Carole MacNeil. Clearly being groomed for bigger things, he was one of the first Canadian journalists inside the prison at Guantánamo Bay and to report from Banda Aceh in Indonesia after the tsunami. In 2009, with little political reporting experience, he was given the helm of Power and Politics, a program that replaced just-plain Politics, hosted by Ottawa veteran Don Newman. In 2011, Solomon also became host of The House, a one-hour weekly CBC Radio show that reaches 344,500 listeners.

Solomon and Quinn acclimatized to the Ottawa social swim, becoming fixtures at concerts, diplomatic parties and charity events, where Solomon often acted as emcee. The couple bought a house for $1.3 million in the exclusive Rockcliffe Park neighbourhood, one that sits around the corner from the house Justin Trudeau now rents, and is a five-minute walk from Carney’s. Their daughter attended an elite private school in the area. Quinn, who’d stopped working after marriage to study art history and pursue charity work, was founding chair of the Southam Club, a social hub at the National Arts Centre where she and Solomon mingled with Ottawa culturati, policy wonks and politicians, including Justin Trudeau.

Carney and Solomon also bonded as members of an informal group of fortysomething professionals who jogged at the crack of dawn through area parks and along waterfront paths. “I get up at 6:15 a.m. to run with the guys for 10k, and do 25 push-ups and 25 sit-ups,” Solomon told The Globe and Mail for a fitness story in 2010. The TV host was hailed as a “superstar eco-hero catalyst” by the Ottawa Citizen; he was chair of the committee of the inaugural Riverboat Gala in 2013, a fundraiser for Riverkeepers, a group that monitors the health of the Ottawa River. The event, which doubled as Carney’s going-away party, raised $150,000. Carney and Solomon clearly remained on friendly terms after Carney’s move to London. On April 25 of this year, Solomon tweeted a triumphant post-London marathon run with the Bank of England governor. (Carney declined to be interviewed for this story. A statement from a spokesman said the central banker has no “enduring professional relationship” with the broadcaster and never comments on personal matters.)

The day after the scandal broke, a clip from the 1994 film The Paper made the rounds on Twitter. In the scene, the veteran newspaperman played by Robert Duvall lectures a colleague on a journalistic conundrum: “Well, the people we cover—we move in their world but it is their world. You can’t live like them, Alicia. You’ll never keep up … We don’t get the money—never have, never will.” It’s not clear Solomon was angling to be part of the world he was covering, but he was far from the fringes. “I traffic in people of great power,” he told Simon Bredin, the author of a profile published this spring in the Ryerson Review of Journalism. “That’s my world. This is about as establishment in my field as it gets.”

BlackBerry mogul Jim Balsillie purchased art from Bailey, including the Peter Doig piece that resulted in the dispute between Bailey and Solomon, but knew nothing of a secret commission to Solomon. Matt York/AP

How closely Evan Solomon and Bruce Bailey stayed in touch over the years is not clear (neither Bailey nor Solomon responded to interview requests from Maclean’s). What is known is that Jim Balsillie served as an inadvertent catalyst in getting their business arrangement off the ground. Solomon approached Balsillie in the fall of 2013 to appear on Power and Politics to discuss sustainability and his expedition to the Arctic. Balsillie declined but agreed to meet Solomon for a drink and talk to him more informally. They met at a pub, the Village Idiot, before attending the Writer’s Trust Prize; Solomon sat on the jury, Balsillie was a guest.

What Balsillie did not know, until the Toronto Star called him earlier this month, is that the day before that first meeting, on Oct. 22, 2013, Solomon and Bailey hammered out a contract that clearly spelled out their arrangement for selling off pieces from Bailey’s personal collection: “Whereas Solomon is a Canadian journalist and has become familiar with collectors and others who might have an interest in purchasing Canadian and other art,” the agreement read, going on to name names, “Solomon agrees to, from time to time, introduce [Bailey] to such persons as Jim Balsillie, [billionaire entrepreneur] Reza Satchu and others who might be interested in purchasing the works of arts carried by [Bailey] or who have a relationship with [Bailey].”

Referral fees are common when it comes to art sales, says Charlie Pachter. “A lot of action in the art world is interior designers with very wealthy clients who take a percentage for placing a work; it varies from 10 to 20.” As he sees it, 10 per cent is “negligible”: “Galleries take 50 per cent. I have had rich ladies from Rosedale say, ‘I’ve got someone who wants to see your work; if we make a sale is there something in it for me?’ I say, ‘Of course. I’ve done it for my own friends.'” Solomon would be useful to Bruce, says a source who knows them both. “[Bruce] was too eccentric for a certain segment of Canadian society. He can’t just phone up Mark Carney, but Evan Solomon can.”

Vaughan points out that referral fees are typically deserved: super-wealthy buyers are very fussy and need a lot of hand-holding. “They don’t buy art because they like it or it speaks to them or because they want it,” he says. “They buy it as an investment. With that comes a particular social anxiety.”

What was striking about Solomon and Bailey’s arrangement was that Balsillie, who has five art advisers on retainer, was not looking for any such help from Solomon. Nor was the TV host’s referral commission ever discussed with him. Solomon would also profit from a connection made via Power and Politics—though his deal with Bailey was struck at a time when CBC hosts routinely monetized their public profile. On the speaker’s circuit, Solomon was being paid $5,000 to $10,000 for appearances, according to his agency, Speaker’s Spotlight, which presented Solomon as someone who “spends his professional life interviewing the powerbrokers and politicians that influence crucial decisions in business, innovation, technology, society, and sustainability—in Canada and around the world.” If one is to take Solomon at his word, he did not view the art business any differently.

Kim Dorland, standing between his works. The price range of one of his paintings: $18,000-25,000. Fred Lum/The Globe and Mail/CP

Balsillie, for his part, didn’t know art was on the agenda when Bailey, also a guest at the gala, joined them at the Village Idiot that evening. That the two men hit it off isn’t surprising. Balsillie is a serious collector, and what Bailey had to sell was very desirable, including work by Peter Doig, the Edinburgh-born painter whose work references years spent in Canada as a boy. A Toronto man familiar with the art scene recalls seeing several Doigs at Bailey’s country house 15 years ago. “That’s when you could get a Doig for a song,” he says. “Bruce has a fabulous eye.” In the past decade, prices for Doig’s work have exploded. In 2013, his painting The Architect’s Home in the Ravine sold for $12 million at a London auction.

Balsillie and Bailey stayed in touch; the former BlackBerry magnate viewed him as a friend, not a dealer, although he bought works from him, including a Doig. Balsillie also saw Solomon socially a handful of times after that October meeting. Solomon and Bailey’s business, meanwhile, appeared to be booming, despite a deal falling through with an unnamed Dutch ambassador in the summer of 2014. In December, the two sold Carney a painting by Canadian artist Kim Dorland for $22,500, at a “friend” discount. “We just sold the Kim Dorland to Mark Carney!” Solomon wrote in an email, suggesting there could be more sales like it: “A great client and his circle is very wide. He liked our 10 per cent off!” Solomon added that Carney has a “super sensitive” position in England and advised Bailey to be very “discreet” about the purchase. Still, Solomon couldn’t help express excitement about the doors Carney could open: “Next year in terms of the Guv will be very interesting,” he wrote. “He has access to highest power network in the world,” promising “contacts for other buyers—Doig size—will be in the offing.”

What Solomon was referring to, no doubt, was the access to wealth provided by Carney’s in-laws. His wife, Diana Fox Carney, an Oxford-educated development economist, is sister to Lady Tania Rotherwick, the wife of Lord Rotherwick, a shipping heir. The Rotherwick estate, Cornbury Park in Oxfordshire, is home to the popular weekend-long Wilderness Festival, dubbed “Poshstock” due to its well-heeled audience. Past attendees have included Prince Harry and the “Chipping Norton set”—a group of powerful friends living in the area who include Prime Minister David Cameron and Elisabeth Murdoch. The Carneys appeared at Poshstock shortly after moving to England in 2013, an appearance that signalled to the Evening Standard a “sign that he might be willing to embrace the very grand social milieu of his aristocratic in-laws.”

But Diana Carney’s mother, Jennifer Atkinson, shot down any notions that they had social-climbing aspirations. “They are totally unmaterialistic,” she told the Times of London in 2013. Atkinson pointed out that Mark Carney had turned down a chauffeur-driven car at his previous job. “They’re not ostentatious in any way,” she said, adding that the only thing they spend money on is art, and that was once a year, when they bought a piece to mark their wedding anniversary. Their home in Ottawa was low-key and cosy, says one source, who recalls the kids’ rooms painted in fun, unfashionable colours. Their move to England represented a huge step up, given Carney’s pay packet of $963,000 a year, but it didn’t appear to alter their determinedly modest lifestyle.

Peter Doig, standing in front of his work. Price of a recent Doig at auction: $12 million. Gaby Gerster/laif/Redux

For Solomon, the spring of 2015 was financially eventful. On Feb. 19, a month after the CBC prohibited staff from taking paid speaking gigs, he wrote a letter to Bailey demanding more than $1 million in unpaid commission on the Doig painting sold to Balsillie. Six days after he sent that letter, Solomon sold a severed portion of his lot to a neighbour for $130,000. On April 10, a $1-million charge was registered on the Rockcliffe Park house. Real estate experts note that the most likely explanation is that it’s a line of credit for up to $1 million; it could alternatively represent a refinancing of the existing mortgage. The existing mortgage on the house, dating to the 2009 purchase, is for $750,000; there was an additional $200,000 charge registered on the date of purchase, which was discharged on April 17, 2015. Adding to the mystery, the property has been on the market on an “exclusive” listing for $1.65 million since April 2013.

Also in April, according to CBC spokesman Chuck Thompson, Solomon “voluntarily” informed senior news management that he was in a “business partnership” with his wife and an art dealer in which he was a purely silent partner. “We were very clear when he brought it to our attention that no lines could be crossed with regards to our journalistic and standards practices, nor the conflict of interest and ethics policy.”

On June 9, the news of the secret deals broke in the Toronto Star. The story was the buzz of the Toronto art world, says Charlie Pachter: “People called and said, ‘Are you shocked and appalled?’ And I said, ‘Yeah. I’m shocked and appalled he didn’t sell any of my work.'”

Others are more critical of the fact Solomon didn’t report his commissions to Balsillie. It would seem he violated not only a cardinal rule of journalism, but also an unwritten code in the art world. The art market is relatively unregulated, meaning there can be a lack of disclosure and opacity of business methods, says an art-world insider familiar with international markets. “Doing deals behind collectors’ backs is common,” she says. “There are all sorts of creepy things that go on.” But the lack of transparency in commissions taken by Solomon was “an example of the absolute worst,” she says. “The journalists I know who do advising are freelancers, not someone with a high-profile staff job. There’s no excuse if you’re well-versed in the company’s code of ethics. This to me reveals personality rather than just someone who backed into it. It’s so wilful and greedy.”

The end of Solomon’s tenure at CBC was swift. Chuck Thompson, the network’s main spokesperson, received a phone message from Toronto Star reporter Kevin Donovan at around 10:30 a.m. on Monday, June 8, asking if the broadcaster was aware of their host’s art dealings. Solomon had already been contacted by the paper and denied any involvement. “I have never sold any art to anyone,” he initially told the Star. Later he modified his story, admitting that there had been an art venture, but that it was no longer active and saying that it had all been disclosed to his bosses at the CBC.

After the call from the Star, there was another discussion between Solomon and management where he again assured them that no rules had been broken. When that information was relayed to Donovan, however, the reporter provided the CBC with emails and a draft contract between the host and Bailey, which seemed to demonstrate that Solomon was using his position to recruit art clients. By Monday afternoon, the CBC had decided to suspend Solomon and launch its own internal investigation.

His colleagues at Power and Politics were informed Solomon needed to take some time off “for personal reasons,” and viewers of Monday’s show were told only that the host was “away.” The debate about how to react to the CBC’s latest scandal, and what to do with Solomon, continued on Tuesday. In the version making the rounds at the network, Jennifer McGuire, general manager and editor-in-chief of CBC News and Centres, was advocating that he face some sort of censure but keep his job. It was her boss, Heather Conway, the executive vice-president of English services thrust into the forefront with the Ghomeshi scandal, who insisted that he be shown the door. The Star put its story up on the web early Tuesday evening. Shortly thereafter, McGuire issued a statement that CBC News had “ended its relationship with Evan Solomon.”

The network says its decision to fire him had already been made before publication (based, it claims, on violations of internal code of conduct, interest and ethics, and journalistic standards policies, all of which prohibit employees from using their positions to “inappropriately obtain an advantage for themselves”). Solomon’s colleagues learned about it when they read the news online after their broadcast ended at 7 p.m. There was an emotional meeting in their Ottawa offices, where shock quickly gave way to anger and dismay that the CBC had once again been blindsided by the conduct of one of its stars.

Solomon issued a statement of apology: “I am deeply sorry for the damage that my activities have done to the trust that the CBC and its viewers and listeners have put in me,” it read. He has made no other comment. The Canadian Media Guild, the union that represents him, followed with its own statement the next day, expressing concern there “may have been a rush to judgment” and a “disproportionate response” by the CBC. Carmel Smyth, CMG national president, did not respond to a request for an interview. And the network seems intent on saying as little as possible about the affair, declining a request for an interview with management. On Wednesday, Rosie Barton, the replacement host of Power and Politics, paid tribute to Solomon’s voice and tenacity, but noted that the show is bigger than the presenter, vowing to continue to present the “best political journalism, always with you, the viewer, in mind.”

The CBC’s quick and decisive handling of Solomon has only served to raise questions about the way the network has chosen to deal with missteps by other hosts, notably Amanda Lang. Lang and Solomon’s transgressions were not the same, Thompson told Maclean’s. “They were different circumstances, most notably in that the content that went to air [in Lang’s case] was not compromised.”

Solomon has gone to ground, reportedly devastated, though when a Toronto Star photographer captured him through his kitchen window, the former host gave him a thumbs-up. “That’s typical Evan,” says a friend. “Always aware of how it will play.” Another points to an irony: “This whole story is one that Evan would have loved to have covered himself—were he not at the centre of it, of course.” In fact, in an April 7 segment on Power and Politics about the Mike Duffy trial, Solomon provided a perfect crystallization of his own story: “We, frankly, spend our entire lives as journalists trying to get beyond the polish and the spin. This trial is like an autopsy on the body, where we get to see inside—all the emails. So it’s fascinating for us.”

On the first page of his 1999 novel, Crossing the Distance, Solomon writes about betrayal: “Betrayal isn’t something you choose, it’s something that chooses you,” he writes. The statement, which has a fortune-cookie veracity to it, has resonance in Solomon’s current predicament, which has layers of betrayal to it. Most obvious is his betrayal of his employer, his colleagues, his audience and his well-placed friends, who didn’t make a choice. But his subtler act of betrayal was to himself, the product of choices he did make.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/strange-downfall-evan-solomon/feed/14Amiel: Why the CBC needs new bloodhttp://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/amiel-why-the-cbc-needs-new-blood/
http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/amiel-why-the-cbc-needs-new-blood/#commentsThu, 18 Jun 2015 09:36:30 +0000http://www.macleans.ca/?p=730413Evan Solomon was fired due to a selective reading of the CBC's standard, writes Barbara Amiel—proving its leaders think in a box and go with the wind

Off the cliff went Evan Solomon, the most recent putative successor to CBC’s über-news personality Peter Mansbridge. Before him it was Amanda Lang, whose rumoured future as the next Mansbridge was detonated by the stir over her relationship with the Royal Bank of Canada. Being thought of as possible heir to Mansbridge should come with danger pay. And if success is measured in terms of successfully getting rid of your successors, the outcome was an (unwished for) success for Peter.

CBC’s summary execution of Solomon was an ugly sight. No employee deserves the shabby treatment he received and, when presented as a moral act for the good of the nation, it is particularly unpleasant. Public broadcasting is vital to a nation’s culture, but it becomes hard to support CBC’s unique role when its executives act like Robespierres, reflect mob hysteria and seem unable to think beyond a tight little world of inbred views.

CBC’s collective agreement allows employees to do outside work, provided it doesn’t interfere with or exploit their CBC connection. I don’t know the details of Solomon’s personal contract, but CBC was informed by him that he was in the art business and that was all fine until it was not fine in the eyes of the Toronto Star.

Solomon did not meet CBC’s “very highest standard of journalistic conduct and ethics,” said CBC News’s editor-in-chief, Jennifer McGuire, presumably suggesting Solomon used his position for personal benefit. Any on-air celebrity derives personal benefit from his job, whether in better restaurant reservations, upgraded hotel rooms or more sexual partners. In Solomon’s case, he lived in Ottawa and made personal friends he would not make living in Thunder Bay, working for Canadian Tire. Some of those friends had jobs needing no friendship with Solomon to be desirable guests on any CBC news show. The intersection of his art deals with friends would be a natural development.

Solomon’s art brokerage certainly had a sleazy aspect to it, and one wonders when on Earth sophisticated people will stop writing excited emails for the benefit of the Toronto Star. I don’t believe Solomon interviewed on-air any of his art buyers after they purchased works, though I wouldn’t necessarily ﬁnd that offensive. One wonders just who released his private correspondence to the Star: The natural suspect is his ex-business partner, who apparently tried to weasel out of a large commission. The ethics of releasing that correspondence are not my concern, nor apparently of the Star, which seemed to feel, characteristically, this was all in the public interest.

“Evan Solomon’s activities were inconsistent with our conflict-of-interest policy . . . as well as our journalistic standards and practices,” said CBC spokesman Chuck Thompson. These standards are applied selectively. The CBC commits itself to diversity of opinion. This means the hiring of two or three people with views questioning the orthodoxy of the day as guest commentators or panellists but not as staff producers, writers or on-air hosts. That way the CBC keeps firm control, uncontaminated by new approaches.

Professor Tom Flanagan, a prize-winning author on Aboriginal history, fit the model of unorthodox commentator and appeared twice a week on Solomon’s Power and Politics. In 2013, Flanagan gave a speech at the University of Lethbridge on the Indian Act. A hostile Aboriginal activist asked about an aside Flanagan made in 2009 over the role a lawyer plays when defending clients on child pornography charges. Flanagan replied: “I certainly have no sympathy for child molesters, but I do have some grave doubts about putting people in jail for their taste in pictures . . . It is a real issue of personal liberty and to what extent we put people in jail for doing something in which they do not harm another person . . .” A legitimate response for debate. Next morning, Flanagan learned the CBC had terminated his contract. “While we support and encourage free speech . . . and a diverse range of voices,” said the CBC, “we believe Mr. Flanagan’s comments to have crossed the line.” This was a press release out of Orwell’s Ministry of Love: a mockery of both the CBC’s own code of conduct and its mandate for diversity of opinion.

The politically correct CBC News follows a left-liberal zeitgeist: This is so proverbial as to be akin to judicial notice; witness Flanagan’s fate. Occasionally left- and right-wing ideologues meet, as in the orthodoxies on any sexual matter affecting women and children, apart from abortion. CBC will fire or reprimand people for taking money from sources they view as distasteful, even though it retained and later promoted Mark Starowicz, former producer of As it Happens, after it came to light in 1977 that he had taken money from an Ottawa-based Pravda correspondent (unsurprisingly working for Soviet intelligence). CBC reported on the Charlie Hebdo assassinations without showing the cover cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad, because that could “offend” Muslims. Actually, as a Jew, I find it deeply offensive that the CBC bans the words “terrorist” and “terrorism” when reporting Islamist terrorism, but my tribe is not in fashion.

The justification for the fatwa on using the word “terrorist” in news reporting unless attributed captures the CBC mental landscape as delineated by Blair Shewchuk, CBC News’s senior editor of journalistic standards, in his 2001 style manual, “Terrorists and Freedom Fighters.” He lists definitions of terrorist and terrorism, favouring references from the UN (one of the world’s foremost whitewashers of terror), anti-American Noam Chomsky, the International Court of Justice and all the usual suspects. The CBC apparently believes that by objectifying the problem through the use of other people’s definitions, they can justify their solution. They do not see that their own decision not to call a terrorist a terrorist is a political choice.

The CBC needs a new president, new blood and a new backbone for its news department. Prohibition of words, and firings, are a sideshow. The real problem is that the current upholders of journalism standards at the corporation rarely interact with ideas counter to their own, and come from backgrounds limited to schools of journalism or lifelong careers in popular journalism. They think in a box and go with the wind. Social media is their new code of conduct. No fault here: This is all they know. But this world robs viewers of information and diversity of views, and betrays both the talent within the CBC and the Canadian public they serve. This is not news—in any sense of the word.

Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau and Evan Solomon at the state funeral for Jim Flaherty at the Cathedral Church of St. James in Toronto on April 16, 2014 (Michael Hudson/CP)

Evan Solomon is the latest tall poppy to be lopped off at Canada’s public broadcaster, following allegations he used his position as a TV host to broker lucrative art deals.

That has journalism ethics experts shaking their heads.

“There doesn’t seem to be a very clear understanding of conflict of interest,” said Carleton University journalism professor Chris Waddell, a former CBC News producer and parliamentary bureau chief.

Solomon was let go after a Toronto Star investigation revealed he’d brokered the sale of artworks between collector Bruce Bailey and such powerful figures as former Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney and Research in Motion (now BlackBerry) co-founder Jim Balsillie. In a written apology on Tuesday night, Solomon said he did not consider his art business a conflict with his journalism. He told the Star that business ended in 2014.

“Most people understand you need to avoid perceived, as well as real, conflicts of interest,” Waddell said. “Covering your friends, reporting stories that have your friends in them, having business relationships with people you’re covering, are all obvious things you should avoid.”

That’s sometimes easier said than done in Ottawa, where it’s not unusual for members of the press to attend many of the same functions and events as MPs and other elites in the capital. Politicians and journalists appear onstage together at events like the annual Jaimie Anderson Parliamentary Internship fundraiser. Carney and Solomon have been photographed together at events held by the Southam Club, as noted in local society pages and the club’s website.

Solomon is known to have a personal friendship with Carney, now governor of the Bank of England, even posting a photo of the two to Twitter after running the London Marathon this spring.

The CBC has faced increased scrutiny following the criticism that several high-profile hosts, including The National‘s Peter Mansbridge, business reporter Amanda Lang and Cross Country Checkup host Rex Murphy were blurring ethical lines by accepting fees for paid appearances. That prompted the broadcaster to clamp down on paid speeches last year, by updating CBC policy to disallow requests for appearances from groups that seek to influence public policy, according to a blog post from editor-in-chief Jennifer McGuire last year.

In a memo to staff on Wednesday afternoon, McGuire said CBC was assured by Solomon in April that his art business did not conflict with CBC News. She wrote that, on Monday, the Toronto Star approached CBC with information that, if true, “significantly changed our understanding of the situation.”

“Based upon information from our own review, it was determined that Evan’s activities were inconsistent with our conflict-of-interest and ethics policies, as well as our journalistic standards and practices.”

In her memo, McGuire said that “any ethical lapse reflects badly on the entire profession.”

It’s true that not only CBC journalists have been accused of misconduct. Global News anchor Leslie Roberts resigned earlier this year after it was revealed that guests who had appeared on Global programs were affiliated with a PR company in which he had a secret stake. And in the U.S., NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams was suspended this winter for misleading the public about his experiences covering the war in Iraq in 2003.

But, for a public broadcaster, the problem goes beyond an ethical debate. The scandals can lower audience opinion of the CBC, and the same is true for government, which determines the corporation’s funding, Waddell said.

Ryerson University journalism chair and ethics professor Ivor Shapiro said it’s “mystifying” that seasoned journalists such as Solomon could believe they weren’t breaking any rules.

Journalistic work to make money from people who are sources is a clear violation, Shapiro said, calling it “double-dipping,” adding that a financial relationship taints the work because the journalist is no longer independent.

As to why the claims of ethical breaches have involved mostly broadcast journalists, Shapiro suggested that an insight can be gleaned from Janice Rubin’s investigation into the allegations against former CBC host Jian Ghomeshi, who faces numerous charges related to violence against women. The report referred to “host culture,” which includes the belief that “people who occupy the role of an on-air host inevitably have big personalities, big egos and big demands,” among other things, which may lead them to act with impunity.

“I think there’s some part of the hubris that goes along with celebrity that makes you think, ‘I can just do this,’ ” Shapiro said.

TORONTO — The CBC has abruptly “ended its relationship” with high-profile news host Evan Solomon, saying it determined he had acted in ways that were “inconsistent” with its code of ethics.

The departure of Solomon, one of CBC’s best-known news personalities, was announced Tuesday night barely an hour after the Toronto Star alleged he had “secretly been brokering lucrative art deals” with people he has dealt with through his job.

In a statement issued about two and a half hours later through his lawyer, Solomon said he never intentionally used his position at CBC to promote a private business partnership he was involved in.

Solomon said he formed the partnership with a friend in 2013 to broker Canadian art. He said the business involved only two clients and noted that he disclosed the business to CBC earlier this year.

“I did not view the art business as a conflict with my political journalism at the CBC and never intentionally used my position at the CBC to promote the business,” he said. “This month, following a difficult dispute with my partner, I took steps to end our business relationship.”

Solomon said he was “deeply sorry” for any damage his activities had done to the trust CBC, its viewers and its listeners put in him.

“I have the utmost respect for the CBC and what it stands for,” he said.

Solomon, who is based in Ottawa, was the host of Power and Politics show on CBC television and host of “The House” on CBC radio.

CBC News editor-in-chief Jennifer McGuire sent a note to staff on Tuesday night announcing that the broadcaster was cutting ties with the 47-year-old journalist.

“I regret to inform you that CBC News has ended its relationship with Evan Solomon host of Power and Politics and The House,” she said in an email. “We will be making announcements about the interim hosting of these programs in the next few days.”

CBC spokesman Chuck Thompson said the broadcaster determined some of Solomon’s activities were “inconsistent” with the organization’s conflict of interest and ethics policy, as well as its journalistic standards and practices.

Sources at the CBC said Solomon’s departure was discussed at an emotional meeting of the Power and Politics team after its Tuesday’s show, which was airing when the Star story was published.

The issue over Solomon’s activities comes after several CBC on-air personalities also found themselves in the news over their alleged conduct.

Former CBC radio host Jian Ghomeshi is facing several sexual assault charges and was fired after CBC executives saw what they described as graphic evidence that he had physically injured a woman. Ghomeshi has admitted to engaging in rough sex but said it was consensual. His lawyer has said he will plead not guilty to the charges.

CBC business reporter Amanda Lang recently came under fire for an alleged conflict of interest in her reporting — although a review by the broadcaster found she abided by journalistic standards.

Even CBC’s chief correspondent and national anchor, Peter Mansbridge, faced questions last year after reports he made a paid speech to petroleum producers. Mansbridge said he has never publicly promoted or opposed oilsands development and the CBC’s ombudsman said Mansbridge did nothing wrong by accepting fees for the speaking engagement, noting that his speech focused on what it means to be a Canadian.

In its report on Solomon, The Star cited the CBC code of ethics, which states “employees must not use their positions to further their personal interests.”

The newspaper alleged Solomon was taking “secret commission payments” related to art sales between a Toronto-area art collector and people he dealt with as a host at CBC.

In at least one case, the Star reported, Solomon took commissions of over $300,000 and allegedly didn’t tell the buyer he was being paid fees for his involvement in the deal.

The newspaper said Jim Balsillie, co-founder of Research In Motion (now known as BlackBerry), and former Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney were among the people Solomon connected to an art collector he knew.

Solomon has dealt with both Balsillie and Carney through his hosting duties at CBC.

Solomon, who has won two Gemini awards, is also a guest anchor on CBC News’s flagship nightly newscast, “The National.”

He joined the broadcaster in 1994 and worked in a variety of roles. Before his latest positions, he co-hosted weekly news and current affairs shows “CBC News: Sunday” and “CBC News: Sunday night” where he reported on a range of national and international stories. Prior to that he hosted a show about print culture and ideas, another about technology, as well as a CBC mini-series about writers and thinkers who made a radical difference.

Earlier in his career, Solomon was co-founder of a technology and culture magazine called “Shift,” where he was editor in chief from 1992 to 1999.

Solomon has also published a novel, “Crossing the Distance,” two children’s books, and a non-fiction book on energy.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/cbc-ends-its-relationship-with-on-air-personality-evan-solomon/feed/16Lettershttp://www.macleans.ca/general/letters-58/
http://www.macleans.ca/general/letters-58/#respondThu, 20 Feb 2014 14:12:13 +0000http://www.macleans.ca/?p=510383Readers say there's a dearth of students in the skilled trades, and curlers are 'ripped like Greek gods'

Thanks for finally starting to take on the social infatuation with anxiety as a sign of pathology and something to be squashed or avoided (“The new worry epidemic,” Society, Feb. 17). For more than 50 years, we have known that low arousal (also known as anxiety) and high arousal are both associated with suboptimal performance. There is a sweet spot: Just the right amount of anxiety leads to the best outcomes. Avoidance of stressors leads to less capacity to adapt and become resilient, while successfully riding out the worry leads to better coping, more skills and the ability to better face, as Hamlet mused, the “slings and errors of outrageous fortune?.?.?.?and by opposing end them.” The anxiety everyone experiences when faced with a life challenge (also called stress) is not a problem. How we deal with it could be. If a person loses his job, he does not develop a depression. He may be demoralized, angry, frightened or sad, but he needs a job, not Prozac.

We are looking at devastation on a global scale, which, in a few short years, will be irreversible. Worry? I would hope so! Worry enough to take action? That would be nice! But our narcissistic society shows a depth of ignorance and a lack of awareness that is mind-boggling. It is high time this became a priority in all our thinking. And, for those of us who do give thought to it, yes, it is a source of worry!

H.L. McFadden, Surrey, B.C.

I would like to thank the writers and editors of Maclean’s for my best LOL moment of the week. After years of parading apocalyptic covers on health, business and the world that even Chicken Little would argue are over-the-top, this week’s cover suggests that we should worry about worrying. In the worry epidemic, it appears to me that Maclean’s is Patient Zero.

Yves Beaulieu, Montreal

Not a fair fight

Coming in the week when the Harper government has introduced its Fair Elections Act, it is fitting that Paul Wells has reminded us that Elizabeth May was elected as a party of one (“A reason to listen to Elizabeth May,” Feb. 17). Real electoral reform would address the gross “unfairness” of our undemocratic first-past-the-post system and move toward proportional representation, as is used now in most of the democratic world. In the last federal election, for a total of 576,221 votes, the Green party got only one MP, Elizabeth May. Meanwhile, 35 of the 166 Conservatives were elected with a total of 540,191 votes. Is this a fair election? We can’t hope for change to come from a party that so obviously benefits greatly from the status quo. It is so obvious that increased donation limits will be of most benefit to the party with the most financially comfortable base of supporters. It will not equally help the political parties traditionally supported by Canadians who are financially falling a little further behind with each passing year.

Gayvin Franson, Saskatoon

Paul Wells is right: There are many good reasons why we should listen to Elizabeth May. One of the few MPs who puts her concern for Canada above politics, May speaks intelligently and respectfully about key issues that will shape the quality of life in the years ahead—most notably, the insidious dismantling of our cherished democracy and the perils of doing nothing about global warming. To those of us in despair over Canada’s future, May offers hope.

Why has Stephen Harper not appointed Barbara Amiel as chair of the CBC (“Dear Evan, about your letter?.?.?.,” Feb. 17)? I have not watched the CBC for a decade, other than sports. It’s too biased; I don’t believe a syllable uttered there. Time to shut down their Front Street cube and move its heart to Winnipeg or Markham, Ont., or Gatineau, Que., or Burnaby, B.C.—anywhere that represents Canada today.

Paul J. Larocque, Markham, Ont.

I’ve always found Evan Solomon’s interviewing and reporting fair and balanced. His interview with Foreign Affairs Minister Baird was no exception. I am willing to predict that, one day, Solomon will receive the Order of Canada for his achievements in journalism. In fact, I understand there is a recently created vacancy that he could fill!

Conrad Gregoire, Ottawa

Amiel’s motivation for peace is her fear that Israelis of Arab decent (“lions”) outnumber those of Jewish descent (“lambs”). Amiel demands equality in Canada while she encourages discrimination in Israel. Would she like Jewish Canadians labelled “a demographic danger” to Canada? If the answer is no, why encourage a parallel approach elsewhere?

Oni Ornan, Toronto

Barbara Amiel says Evan Solomon is a “good news reader.” Would it then be fair to characterize Amiel as a “decent typist”? What’s with the snide comment about Solomon having attended a private high school? How is that relevant? Amiel ends her rant with a condescending observation that Solomon has made himself a shooting target by arguing with her and that, while she personally doesn’t shoot things, he’ll perhaps “take this as a caution.” Amiel needs to give herself a shake.

Paul Gaffney, Ottawa

Evan Solomon states that he only asked questions of Baird about the new Canadian ambassador to Israel “and never stated an opinion at all.” Maybe he fails to understand that the kind of questions asked reflect preconceived opinions.

Isi Erez, Richmond, B.C.

Gladitorial combat

Your Feb. 17 editorial poses the question: Can football reinvent itself as a spectacle of speed, skill and courage, without creating horrible brain damage or becoming indistinguishable from soccer? Yes, easily. Just reduce padding to a minimum and outlaw helmets completely. For a couple of games, there may be some pretty disastrous clashes. Give those players the Darwin award; they’ll remove themselves from the population. The rest will soon settle down to protecting their own heads instead of expecting helmets to do it.

Mick Price, professor emeritus, University of Alberta, Edmonton

Why pick on football? Boxing and MMA, “sports” whose intent is deliberately to damage an adversary’s brain, deserve banishment. These are gladiatorial combats better suited to ancient Rome than to societies that have supposedly been enlightened.

Frank Gue, Burlington, Ont.

Pipeline approval

My compliments to Maclean’s for an outstanding summary of the pipeline’s political issues (“End of the line,” National, Feb. 3). Writer Luiza Savage has done an excellent job in reporting the political nonsense down here in the States that seems to have infected virtually every decision Congress must address. Pipeline construction is a project that will eventually go forward. Unfortunately, not all the homework was done by TransCanada. If only they had considered the longer route, the pipeline would now be in service.

William Keller, Mesa, Ariz.

Coastal confusion

Jimmy Kimmel is not the sole surviving late-night talk-show host in Los Angeles (“So long, Los Angeles,” TV, Feb. 17). Award-winning Craig Ferguson does, in fact, do the Late Late Show in L.A., even though you lumped him in with the New York hosts.

Susan Devries, Maple Ridge, B.C.

A long, painful wait

I would like to share the anger my family feels regarding wait times for medical treatment (“Waiting is the hardest part,” National, Feb. 17). My 25-year-old son began experiencing severe hip pain in early 2012. His family doctor referred him to an orthopedic surgeon that February. We were never contacted by this particular doctor for an appointment, so, after a couple of months, we found another surgeon in our area and, six months later, we got an appointment. After undergoing X-rays and an MRI, he was again referred to another surgeon in London, Ont. We waited more than a year to see this doctor. We could not believe our ears when he told us it would be another six to eight months, at the earliest, before surgery could be performed. My son is in constant pain, is unable to work and cannot afford to live on his own. No surprise that Canada is at the bottom of the wait-time list, and the Harper government’s level of engagement on the problem is “close to zero.” It angers my son even more when he thinks of the money wasted by our governments at all levels, yet there are many people forced to live with pain while the “system” grinds on at a pace slower than a snail’s. One thing I am certain of, however, is that if Health Minister Rona Ambrose or Prime Minister Stephen Harper suffered from this debilitating illness, he or she would have surgery scheduled within days!

Pete Russell, Thornbury, Ont.

Leaving a fishy taste

Jacob Richler rationalizes his choice not to be “dogmatic” when he chooses seafood, by saying that a “great-looking endangered skate wing” is “already deceased, after all” (“Ocean Wise, but palate-foolish,” Taste, Feb. 17). To take that thought to its logical conclusion, we may as well lift the ban on the ivory trade because, hey, the elephants are already dead anyway, right? What a wonderfully facile and self-absorbed way to think. It must be liberating, but I hope your readers bring a little more sense to the table than he seems to.

Andy Chalk, Delhi, Ont.

Curl up with a muscle man

So Scott Feschuk has been told he has “the body of a curler” (“ ‘I wonder if this looks weird on TV,’ ” Feschuk, Feb. 17). He should be so lucky! Brad Jacobs and his team, who represent Canada at the Olympics, are ripped like proverbial Greek gods. All the current competitive teams take fitness and nutrition as seriously as any other athlete, and have the physique and stamina to prove it. Go for it, Scott! You could do a lot worse. There are calendars featuring the women of curling and the men of curling, available through the Curling News. Talk about eye candy.

Ann Chick, Maitland, Ont.

Good point

I own a skilled trades company in the construction sector. Young people always ask me: “Please, sir, how can I get an apprenticeship?” They have to be lucky or know someone or both. The last paragraph of “The German way” (Jobs Report, Feb. 17) really struck a nerve: “Yes, we need doctors and lawyers and accountants, but we need people who can work with their hands, too.” My local school board just closed two high schools. One had six technical shops, the other was a vocational school for a host of skilled jobs. This to make way for an “experimental” academy to pump even more kids into university—despite our huge glut of unemployed university graduates and a serious shortage of people who can work with their hands.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/general/letters-58/feed/0Dear Evan, In reply to your recent letterhttp://www.macleans.ca/news/world/dear-evan-in-reply-to-your-recent-letter/
http://www.macleans.ca/news/world/dear-evan-in-reply-to-your-recent-letter/#respondWed, 05 Feb 2014 14:10:06 +0000http://www.macleans.ca/?p=504095Barbara Amiel responds to a letter from the host of CBC's Power and Politics

]]>We all have times when we fear suffering a stroke during a television news broadcast, usually when actually knowing something about the subject under discussion. Public broadcasters in particular are a menace, with their unwavering adherence to the fashions of the times. Mind you, my response is mild compared to the critic in last October’s British Spectator who, after listening to professor Steve Jones talking on BBC Radio about climate change, began his column characterizing a statement of the good prof as a “cherishably stupid, rude, fatuous, crabby, bigoted, ignorant, petulant, feeble, fallacious, dishonest and misleading argument.”

I wouldn’t use all those words to describe Evan Solomon’s letter to Maclean’s about my last column because, for all his shortcomings, Mr. Solomon is a good news reader, rather engaging and anyway, I don’t think he is bigoted. Some of the other words, though, may have a passing application.

My column was about the rather aggressive interview by Mr. Solomon of Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird on his appointment of lawyer Vivian Bercovici as ambassador to Israel. Clearly, I ruined CBC’s splendid moment catching the government red-handed appointing someone who outspokenly agrees with its policies. Ms. Bercovici, it turns out, is Jewish—though plugged in as I am, I’d never heard of her. Anyway, she’s definitely not one of those nice post-Zionist Jews beloved of public broadcasters the world over who fondly view the prospect of a non-Jewish state of Israel after the lamb has been demographically or otherwise eaten by the lion. Though Mr. Solomon’s interview was in attack mode (the CBC labels the interview on its site “Baird defends [my italics] ambassador pick”), I wanted to nix the notion being floated by some Jewish organizations that his approach proceeded from ignoble motives: “Solomon’s questions,” I wrote, “were not anti-Semitic in intention, only tread-worn . . . Solomon’s discomfort . . . could not be with Ms. Bercovici’s religion, but her pro-Israel views.”

If you thought that cleared the matter up, you’d be cherishably stupid. In his J’accuse, Mr. Solomon says, “Amiel willfully yanks my questions out of context and worse, she cheaply tosses out the notion that I am—somehow—an anti-Semite. This is the most vulgar, odious allegation and it is beneath her.”

Apart from the obvious problem with his truthfulness, there is a further problem, probably due to Solomon’s nodding off during his Crescent School days and missing stuff on syntax. When he writes that I “cheaply toss[ed] out the notion” of his anti-Semitism—which I demonstrably did not—it’s unclear whether he is complaining that I cheaply refused to accuse him of anti-Semitism or that I did. “Tossed out” could go either way. Most media types upset by criticism of their facts think outright lies are an effective defence: Readers rarely bother to look up the original material. And if patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels, “out of context” is the first of anyone who may wish to have phrased his remarks differently. Perhaps Mr. Solomon is defending himself against what might be a very serious allegation at the CBC of being insufficiently anti-Semitic?

Of course, Solomon’s adherence to CBC’s received wisdom is unsurprising. Companies generally hire people who agree with them. If you owe your appointment at the CBC in part to agreement with its culture in the same way the ambassador owes her job to agreement with the government, it’s difficult not to promote approved policies, even if they don’t show you in your best light. Solomon’s intro mentions Bercovici’s opposition to “the militant group Hamas, which Canada designates as a terrorist organization.” That terrorist designation is also made by the European Union and the U.S. How else would you describe a group that lobs bombs into children’s school buses and uses civilian homes as shields for its terror? One wonders what they would have to do to earn the CBC’s terrorist designation. And what would you designate a person who designates such people as just “militants”? I’d designate them as people who are not putting their best foot forward.

Non-aggressive interviewers on TV are accused of playing softball—though it’s okay lobbying softballs at “militants” who explain they are misunderstood (videCBC interview of Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Zarif, which managed 20 minutes out of 23 before mentioning Syria and avoided Hezbollah entirely). But one must stand up to Stephen Harper’s government. John Baird might well have been asked if the appointment of a strong empathizer on one side of a contentious issue might not make it more difficult to gain a hearing from the other side when wishing to advance government policy. That would have been Solomon’s same question worded in non-accusatory terms.

The larger problem comes with the modern newsperson’s dilemma. I remember my days as a newspaper editor, and then as a performer on BBC’s political question-and-answer programs. Terrifyingly, you were expected to have views on everything without being a specialist in anything. Nowadays, TV newspeople must talk in exclamation marks to keep up with the tempo of the times and the audience’s attention deficit. In this ambience, a news reader’s qualifications are rarely identical with those of a thinker. A thinking person might be too cautious, too lengthy, too boring. When interactive TV screens have four simultaneous points of information, anything above 140 characters is windy.

My solution is to get news from several sources so that the bias and parti pris of the CBC is countered by the bias and parti pris of Fox News, etc. I enjoy Evan Solomon and wouldn’t give him up, even though his letter virtually paints a target on his chest saying “shoot me.” I couldn’t shoot a fly, of course, but perhaps he’ll take this as a caution.

The original letter from Evan Solomon, host of CBC’s Power and Politics

It was not just baffling, but troubling, to read Barbara Amiel’s characterization of the questions I asked Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird about the new Canadian ambassador to Israel (“Open season on Ariel Sharon and Israel,” Jan. 27). Amiel willfully yanks my questions out of context, and worse, she cheaply tosses out the notion that I am—somehow—an anti-Semite. This is the most vulgar, odious allegation and it is beneath her.

As Amiel well knows, the job of a journalist is to ask national leaders questions. I asked the minister fair questions about the new ambassador and her views and background. I never suggested she was not qualified for the job, and never stated an opinion at all. A full read of the transcript—not a selective one—would make that clear. Of course, I was fully aware that former ambassadors to Israel have been Jewish, but none had ever written public opinion pieces on the region before their appointments. Amiel should note that the former Canadian ambassador to Israel, Norman Spector, publicly said the questions I asked were perfectly legitimate and fair. But in Amiel’s efforts to be sensational on a sensitive subject, she deliberately mistakes questions for opinions and uses a horrific slur to buffer her argument. In a world where there is genuine anti-Semitism that poses a real risk, to casually use the label to juice a column, as Amiel does, is irresponsible. I recognize Amiel wants to pick a fight, but on a serious issue like this, she need not first invent her own enemies.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/news/world/dear-evan-in-reply-to-your-recent-letter/feed/0Trudeau and the GSThttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/trudeau-and-the-gst/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/trudeau-and-the-gst/#commentsMon, 03 Dec 2012 18:34:43 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=322817During his interview on CBC’s The House, Justin Trudeau ruled out an increase in the GST.Evan Solomon: Would you raise the GST?Justin Trudeau: I think middle-class families are …

]]>During his interview on CBC’s The House, Justin Trudeau ruled out an increase in the GST.

Evan Solomon: Would you raise the GST?

Justin Trudeau: I think middle-class families are already struggling too much under increasing costs, exploding personal and family debts. I don’t think raising the GST is a good idea.

Mr. Trudeau has promised an evidence-based, fact-based policy agenda. Stephen Gordon has argued that the GST cut has a lot to do with the Harper government’s budget deficit. Scott Clark and Peter DeVries have argued for raising the GST while cutting other taxes.

Well, you know, what has changed is that it’s very, very difficult to get a piece of legislation through the House of Commons because of the obstreperous nature of the opposition and so we need to, you know, make sure in the budget—it’s like, the budget itself is 473 pages, which I delivered on March 29. So we took half of it and we did it in the first budget bill. The other half we do in the second budget bill. There are no surprises, it’s all part of jobs, growth and prosperity for the government of Canada. It’s our agenda and we’re a majority government, we’re entitled to advance our agenda. I know the opposition doesn’t like that and good luck to them in the next election.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/its-the-oppositions-fault-that-these-omnibus-bills-exist-apparently/feed/19CBC interviews banana?http://www.macleans.ca/general/cbc-interviews-banana/
http://www.macleans.ca/general/cbc-interviews-banana/#commentsThu, 27 Sep 2012 23:09:20 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=297781Someone left a banana peel on a seat where CBC host Evan Solomon interviews people for his show Power & Politics.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/general/cbc-interviews-banana/feed/2So what was the 2008 election about then?http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/so-what-was-the-2008-election-about-then/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/so-what-was-the-2008-election-about-then/#respondMon, 18 Jun 2012 16:52:19 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=268547Talking to the House this weekend, Peter Kent discussed the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy and carbon pricing (emphasis mine).Peter Kent: … One major point of …

]]>Talking to the House this weekend, Peter Kent discussed the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy and carbon pricing (emphasis mine).

Peter Kent: … One major point of disagreement with the National Roundtable report was, it again recommended carbon pricing. And I’ve got to say again, our government is not going to impose a carbon tax on Canadians…

Evan Solomon: But they’re not saying carbon tax. To be fair, they said it could be a price on carbon, which could be a cap-and-trade. They have not said or recommended, quite specifically, a carbon tax at all.

Peter Kent:Carbon pricing in any form is a carbon tax, because to be a realistic dollar figure, it would get Canadians at the gas pump for example, and right across the economy, but at the gas pump, it would get us to where Europeans are.

Evan Solomon: But you know they have one in Alberta, provincially. They have a $15 a tonne, it goes to a fund, nonetheless it’s a price on carbon.

Peter Kent: But that will do nothing to get GHG actual emissions down. The carbon market in Europe is under $10 a tonne, half of what it was when they began that market. The EU is no longer issuing. It’s a volatile market, which is probably the most unstable market in the world … we believe that the emitters who are regulated are the ones who will actually get emissions down.

During the 2008 campaign, the Conservatives loudly opposed a carbon tax, while promising to pursue a continental cap-and-trade system. But, according to the Environment Minister, a carbon tax and cap-and-trade are the same thing.

Continental cap-and-trade wasn’t merely a campaign promise either. The Harper government repeated the promise in its 2008 Throne Speech. Jim Prentice identified continental cap-and-trade as an exciting opportunity in November 2008. Mr. Prentice then referenced it in his December 2008 speech to the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Poland. In September 2009, Mr. Prentice lobbied the Alberta government on the virtues of cap-and-trade. And, in December 2009, the Harper government claimed to be “working in collaboration with the provinces and territories to develop a cap and trade system that will ultimately be aligned with the emerging cap and trade program in the United States.”

Peter Kent ran, unsuccessfully, as a Conservative candidate in 2008. Presumably, he endorsed the party’s platform. Even if he didn’t, as recently as last May, the Environment Minister allowed that cap-and-trade “can always be something to consider in the future.”

]]>The CBC gets a look at the F-35’s statement of operational requirements.

One of the 28 mandatory requirements listed is for the plane’s sensor requirements. The document says the plane must be capable of providing the pilot with 360-degree, out-of-cockpit visual situational awareness in a no-light environment. “According to the U.S. Department of Defence there are so many problems with this feature that they’re actually designing a backup. In other words, the plane can’t do it,” Solomon reported…

The document, referred to as “Version 1.0” of the statement of operational requirements for the “next generation fighter capability” was issued on June 1, 2010. It would normally take one to two years after a statement of operational requirements is issued to hold a competition to find a product and sign a contract with a supplier. But MacKay appeared on Power & Politics less than two months later, on July 16, 2010, to announce that the government was moving forward with the F-35 purchase.

Less than a week ago, Peter MacKay reported to Parliament that the conclusion of studies carried out between 2005 and 2010 was that the F-35 “met all of the mandatory requirements specified in the Canadian Forces’ statement of operational requirements.” He added that “the statement of operational requirements contains sensitive information and, like all such documents, cannot be disclosed publicly without redactions.”

In a report for L’Actualite and Maclean’s earlier this year, Alex Castonguay detailed the curious circumstances of the SOR.

But while officials were recommending Canada buy the F-35, a key part of the analysis that goes into all military purchases hadn’t even been written yet. Known as a statement of operational requirement, such a document is like a detailed order form for what the military needs a piece of hardware to accomplish. Yet the document was not completed until June 2010, just one month before the Conservative government announced its plan to buy the F-35. “Recommending a purchase before even writing a statement of operational requirement goes against the criteria of good management,” says Philippe Lagassé, a University of Ottawa professor who specializes in military procurement. “Clearly, the choice had been made long before and the statement was written to match the choice.”

Nor were any of Lockheed’s rivals, such as the U.S. firm Boeing, maker of the F-18 Super Hornet (the modern version of Canada’s CF-18s), or Europe’s Eurofighter consortium, which makes the Typhoon, ever contacted before the recommendation was made to go with the F-35 in 2006. Boeing vice-president Kory Mathews says meetings were held in 2008 and 2009, but he calls those discussions “preliminary” because Canada didn’t ask for any classified information about Boeing’s fighter, such as its radar and stealth capabilities. “So it’s impossible to know what we really have to offer,” says Mathews. “I respectfully suggest to Canada that it ask for all the information if it wants to make an informed decision.” Why didn’t Canada do that? “We didn’t feel the need,” says Col. Dave Burt, in charge of buying the new fighters for the RCAF. “We had all the necessary information, and there was too much of a technology gap between aircraft.”

To critics, such statements are evidence that Canada’s decision-making process around the F-35 is flawed. “It’s a cosmetic analysis,” says Yves Bélanger, director of the research group on the military industry and security at the Université du Québec à Montréal. He says the government should have asked tougher questions of RCAF brass as to whether the F-35 truly offered the best quality for the price. “The government obviously had a bias toward the F-35 because Canada had been part of the program since 1997,” he says. “But that’s no reason to let the soldiers pick their favourite piece of equipment.”

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-statement-of-operational-requirements/feed/16Vic Toews stands with Vic Toewshttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/vic-toews-stands-with-vic-toews/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/vic-toews-stands-with-vic-toews/#commentsThu, 23 Feb 2012 20:52:28 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=241838The Public Safety Minister writes to the National Post to counter the suggestion he was not entirely well-acquainted with his own legislation.At no point was I “surprised” during that …

]]>The Public Safety Minister writes to the National Post to counter the suggestion he was not entirely well-acquainted with his own legislation.

At no point was I “surprised” during that interview. The text of the bill accords in every respect with my expressed understanding.

And that should be no surprise. I’ve been involved in the broader discussion on how to ensure our laws are brought up to speed with rapidly evolving technology since I was the Attorney General in Manitoba over a decade ago.

Matt Gurney’s not convinced. My feeling when this first became news was that Mr. Toews’ comments on The House could be interpreted two ways: that he was previously unaware of the content of Section 17 or that he had not before heard the interpretation of Section 17 that Evan Solomon was offering. And I think I tend to believe the latter is closer to what the minister was trying to say.

Update 4:55pm. I am reminded that a previous attempt by Mr. Toews to correct the record via letter to the editor proved problematic.

]]>In an interview with CTV, the Public Safety Minister maintains there’s a difference between saying someone “stands with” child pornographers and saying someone is a child pornography “sympathizer.”

Speaking with the CBC yesterday, Mr. Toews similarly complained when it was suggested he had said opponents of the government’s legislation supported child pornographers.

Evan Solomon: That’s pretty explosive language, minister, do you think anyone who disagrees with this legislation is standing with child pornographers?

Vic Toews: You know, I said that in the context of a vote in the House of Commons. But the point is, even your introduction, you indicated that I had used the word “support,” which was misleading. I think we have to be very clear. You torque up the rhetoric in order to make a point. And that’s unfortunate, so let’s…

Evan Solomon: With all due respect, minister, when you say you either support, or stand with us…

Vic Toews: No, I didn’t, see you said it again…

Evan Solomon: You said, you either stand with child pornographers, you stand with child pornographers. I just showed the quote. Isn’t that, aren’t you the one that;s torquing the rhetoric up, not me?

Vic Toews: No, you just, in fact what you indicated was to try to slide it into another issue. The issue
of supporting child pornographers is an entirely different issue. And I’m glad you played the full quote. At least you played the full quote, so that Canadians could see exactly what I said and why I said it.

Evan Solomon: But minister, my point here is in a sensitive issue that has to do with judicial oversight, by using that kind of language, standing with child pornographers, does it all of a sudden polarize an issue and mean that we cannot have a dispassionate discussion because you are calling the opposition to this standing with child pornographers? Meaning, delegitimizing some legitimate questions about this bill.

Vic Toews: Look, we will entertain any concerns or legitimate questions about this. But it is clear that presently the legislation does nothing to stop the proliferation of child pornography, which is a huge problem in this country. It’s a huge problem worldwide. Canada, in fact, is out of step. What we are doing is bringing legislative framework into place that places us exactly in the same place that the Americans are in and that the Europeans are in, in order to deal with an international problem.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/vic-toews-parses-himself/feed/36‘I’m not a denier’http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/im-not-a-denier/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/im-not-a-denier/#commentsWed, 01 Feb 2012 17:25:32 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=236975After Megan Leslie tried once on Monday and three times on Tuesday to get Joe Oliver to explain his position on climate change, Evan Solomon gave it a shot on…

]]>After Megan Leslie tried once on Monday and three times on Tuesday to get Joe Oliver to explain his position on climate change, Evan Solomon gave it a shot on CBC’s Power & Politics yesterday evening. Here’s how that went.

Evan Solomon: She asked you three times, Do you believe in climate change, are you a climate change denier? She said she couldn’t get an answer. Could you give us an answer? She asked you, Do you believe in man-made or human-made climate change?

Joe Oliver: Look, I’m not a denier, but you know, this is a matter of science. It’s also a matter for my colleague, the Minister of the Environment, you know, and I don’t think we want to get into that. What I said to her and what I said to the House was we will not proceed with any project unless it is safe for the environment and safe for Canadians. That’s my responsibility.

Evan Solomon: So I just want to clarify one last time and then I want to ask you one last question. So you would say you do believe in the science of climate change?

Joe Oliver: Well, look, I’m not a scientist. Most scientists, overwhelmingly it seems, do believe, you know, do have that view. There are a number who do not. And I certainly take account of the fact that overwhelmingly, as I said, scientists appear to have that view.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/im-not-a-denier/feed/107‘A contempt of Parliament’http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/a-contempt-of-parliament/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/a-contempt-of-parliament/#commentsSat, 04 Jun 2011 03:09:47 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=195687A statement this evening from the office of the Speaker of the Senate.The Honourable Noël A. Kinsella, Speaker of the Senate deplores the actions of a page, which constituted …

]]>A statement this evening from the office of the Speaker of the Senate.

The Honourable Noël A. Kinsella, Speaker of the Senate deplores the actions of a page, which constituted a contempt of Parliament, during the Opening of Parliament in the Senate Chamber today.

All employees of the Senate are expected to serve the institution in a non-partisan manner, with competence, excellence, efficiency and objectivity.

The Senate has terminated the employee’s contract effective immediately for breaching the terms and conditions of employment. The incident raises serious security concerns which the Senate will fully investigate.

The Speaker of the Senate expresses to His Excellency the Governor General the apology of the Chamber for any embarrassment this incident may have caused.

Well, I mean there is a right to freedom of expression in the country. I don’t think that a ceremony like this should be disrupted. I think it’s – I think one has to respect the traditions that we have. She, as a person, she has a right to express her point of view. Obviously as a page she had access to the floor of the Senate and she took advantage of that in order to express her own opinion. So she’ll have to live with the consequences of that.

Ms. May.

Well, [it was] inappropriate. That is the most solemn moment in a parliamentary democracy. We’re essentially in – in theory, we’re in the presence of Her Majesty and the Sovereign. That isn’t Stephen Harper’s room. That’s somebody else’s room. On the other hand, I thought that the act of personal courage was something that you couldn’t avoid. She didn’t shout. She wasn’t disrespectful. Clearly holding a sign up was not appropriate. She was in the wrong room. But her commitment and the concern that all – that many, many Canadian youth come to me all the time that this is their future and when they don’t see climate action, they see their future at stake. So I think that I, while understanding her reasons and feeling that that was a brave act, it was the wrong place.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/a-contempt-of-parliament/feed/96Casts and seal fur at Taste of the Arctichttp://www.macleans.ca/general/casts-and-seal-fur-at-taste-of-the-arctic/
http://www.macleans.ca/general/casts-and-seal-fur-at-taste-of-the-arctic/#commentsFri, 11 Feb 2011 16:36:32 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=171635For a second year, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK) presented A Taste of the Arctic: A Celebration of Inuit Culture. This time the event was held in the Great Hall of…

]]>For a second year, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK) presented A Taste of the Arctic: A Celebration of Inuit Culture. This time the event was held in the Great Hall of the National Gallery of Canada. Below, Evan Solomon, host of CBC’s Power & Politics (left), signs ITK president Mary Simon’s cast.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/general/remembering-mario-lague/feed/0Senators boogie on the dance floor at All-Party Partyhttp://www.macleans.ca/general/senators-boogie-on-the-dance-floor-at-all-party-party/
http://www.macleans.ca/general/senators-boogie-on-the-dance-floor-at-all-party-party/#commentsWed, 12 May 2010 13:15:29 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=125656The final All-Party Party organized by NDP MP Peter Stoffer packed 200 West Block. The building is scheduled for major maintenance and will be closed for years. Below, Liberal Senator…

]]>The final All-Party Party organized by NDP MP Peter Stoffer packed 200 West Block. The building is scheduled for major maintenance and will be closed for years. Below, Liberal Senator David Smith (left) and Tory Senator Nancy Ruth take to the dance floor.

.

Liberal MP Siobhan Coady.

.

Liberal MP Dominic LeBlanc.

.

NDP MP Peter Stoffer.

.

(Left to right) The National Post’s Don Martin and Tory MP Ted Menzies.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/general/paul-gross-laureen-harper-and-a-pack-of-twizzlers/feed/10The insight of Shelly Gloverhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-insight-of-shelly-glover/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-insight-of-shelly-glover/#commentsThu, 01 Apr 2010 03:27:47 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=118673CBC’s Power & Politics reported this evening—available at the 24:30 mark here—on a study of current and projected prison spending by the Conservative government. To discuss the findings, the CBC…

]]>CBC’s Power & Politics reported this evening—available at the 24:30 mark here—on a study of current and projected prison spending by the Conservative government. To discuss the findings, the CBC turned—starting at the 28:40 mark—to a panel of MPs, including Conservative Shelly Glover. Ms. Glover, a former police officer, first suggested that “numbers can be skewed any which way you want, depending on who’s doing them.” She did, though, concede that spending will increase. Host Evan Solomon then moved on to Liberal Mark Holland and New Democrat Joe Comartin.

After Mr. Holland and Mr. Comartin had been permitted to offer their thoughts, Mr. Solomon turned back to Ms. Glover with a specific question about spending on rehabilitation. Ms. Glover’s answer was as follows.

There’s a problem when you talk about numbers. First and foremost, when you talk about that number you just provided, does that include things that perhaps don’t cost money? For example, in our prison systems, we promote reunification of families. That doesn’t cost a dime. We promote that our inmates visit counsellors when they need to speak to someone. That doesn’t cost a dime. So, again, numbers can be skewed any which way, but I do take issue with the misleading comments made by my colleagues. I worked in this system. I’ll tell you straightforward, Canadians are seeing an increase in crime. I don’t care what Stats Canada has reported because they only count reported crime. They do not count unreported crimes. And as a police officer, I’ll tell you, I worked sex crimes for four and a half years, 92% of sex crime victims do not report their crime. Because they don’t have faith in the justice system, they’re fearing retribution, they really do have a number of reasons for not reporting. And the other thing is, let’s not forget, the Liberals have an interest here because, predominantly, prison inmates vote Liberal during elections. Cops vote Conservative. There is a clear interest for the prisoners to be voting for soft on crime legislation that the Liberals put forward.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-insight-of-shelly-glover/feed/100Natynczyk gets it right: out of Kandahar, full stop. But what (or where) next?http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/natynczyk-gets-it-right-out-of-kandahar-full-stop/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/natynczyk-gets-it-right-out-of-kandahar-full-stop/#commentsTue, 10 Nov 2009 22:48:39 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=91558Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Walt Natynczyk just told CBC’s Evan Solomon that he’s started doing what’s required to pull Canadian troops out of Kandahar in 2011, in keeping…

]]>Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Walt Natynczyk just told CBC’s Evan Solomon that he’s started doing what’s required to pull Canadian troops out of Kandahar in 2011, in keeping with the House of Commons motion passed on March 13, 2008 that commits the government to doing just that.

What a relief to hear Natynczyk put it so plainly. Up to now, for reasons I’ve never been able to fathom, debate around the 2011 withdrawal date has often been muddied by a mistaken idea that the House motion left the government wiggle room by only committing it to ending Canada’s “combat role.”

But the motion doesn’t say anything like that. Here’s its key clause:

“the government of Canada [will] notify NATO that Canada will end its presence in Kandahar as of July 2011, and, as of that date, the redeployment of Canadian Forces troops out of Kandahar and their replacement by Afghan forces start as soon as possible, so that it will have been completed by December 2011”

I don’t detect any ambiguity at all in that wording. The phrase “Canada will end its presence in Kandahar” sounds pretty categorical. If you’ve ended your presence and redeployed, you’re gone.

There’s been speculation that Canadian troops involved in training, or perhaps troops needed for the Canadian Provincial Reconstruction Team only, might stay behind in Kandahar when the combat soldiers go. But to leave such a remnant force in Kandahar would clearly require a new House motion.

Natynczyk seems to realize this perfectly well: he’s planning to pull out the whole contingent. Now, if that’s not what the government really wants, they had better start proposing an alternative clearly and soon.

Here’s a thought, though. As far as I can see, there’s nothing in the motion that says Canadian troops couldn’t stay on in Afghanistan if they moved someplace other than Kandahar. In fact, one could argue that the House assumed an ongoing Canadian military component someplace in Afghanistan. I refer to this part of the motion passed back in 2004:

And it is the opinion of this House that Canada’s contribution to the reconstruction and development of Afghanistan should… be revamped and increased to strike a better balance between our military efforts and our development efforts in Afghanistan

It’s hard to imagine a “better balance” between military and development efforts that includes no military involvement at all. So if we’re going to pull out of Kandahar entirely—and that sure looks like the plan—then perhaps we need to consider putting troops someplace else in Afghanistan to prevent the imbalance in our contribution that Parliament expressly wanted to avoid.

Mr. Stoffer might’ve been better off showing up to the studio with his report and the numbers contained therein, but his rejoinder to Mr. Duffy that only one of them was elected by the public might have won him the confrontation. The offending Canadian Press article would seem to be here. The NDP’s press release is here.

]]>CBC’s new politics show—Evan Solomon’s Power & Politics—is debuting now with a bloody faced protester claiming rough treatment. Further details and reaction from Canadian Press, the CBC, Globe, Star, Gargoyle and Canwest.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/thou-doth-protest-ii/feed/17Then they built Evan’s set. And it was HUGEhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/then-they-built-evans-set-and-it-was-huge/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/then-they-built-evans-set-and-it-was-huge/#respondMon, 26 Oct 2009 17:44:29 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=88980The new CBC politics web portal has at least one familiar face, and a lot of zippy features, including a time-lapse look at the construction of the Museum of Human…

]]>The new CBC politics web portal has at least one familiar face, and a lot of zippy features, including a time-lapse look at the construction of the Museum of Human Rights in Winnipegthe Beijing Olympics facilities Evan Solomon’s new set in Ottawa.

Liberal MP Ruby Dhalla was in riding lockdown this summer. She left only twice: for the Liberal caucus meeting in Sudbury, and for French lessons in France. This summer, to mark her fifth year as an elected official, she was raising money for the Ethno-Cultural Canadian Women’s Organization or ECCO (the final O is the symbol for woman). The group’s goal is combatting domestic violence in ethnic communities. Dhalla is also studying to be a pilot; so far, she has only been in simulators, though. Toronto’s Pearson International Airport is on the border of her riding. She often gives herself extra time when flying out of there because security people, many of whom are constituents, stop her to ask about things like immigration problems when she leaves for Ottawa on Mondays. But for the first Monday that the House returned, Dhalla had a downtown Toronto meeting and flew Porter Airlines from the Toronto island airport. Her reading for the first week back was Niall Ferguson’s The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World. Over the summer she read Barack Obama’s books and The Tao of Detox: The Natural Way to Purify Your Body for Health and Longevity.

It’s the much-coveted spot

Conservative backbench MP Brad Trost seems to be out of the doghouse. Several Tory MPs were miffed at Trost after he told a website, “The tourism funding money that went to the gay pride parade in Toronto was not government policy, was not supported by—I think it’s safe to say—by a large majority of the MPs. This was a very isolated decision.” He also alluded to a demotion for Diane Ablonczy, the minister responsible for allocating the funding. But on the first day Parliament resumed, Trost gave the last member’s statement before question period. This is a much-coveted spot since by that time most of the media and other MPs have reached their seats and may actually pay attention to it. NDP House leader Libby Davies says the Conservatives tend to use the last member’s statement simply to rattle Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff. The personal attacks, she says, result in the Liberal caucus rising and extending their applause for their leader. Davies feels that the applause is going on so long it is cutting into question period and lowering the NDP’s chances of getting in an extra question at the end. She has complained to Speaker Peter Milliken.

Big man, big studio

CBC’s Evan Solomon got a warm welcome in the House foyer as MPs returned to the Hill. Solomon will host a two-hour show replacing Don Newman’s Politics. It will focus, he says, on “politics, power and people” and will start mid October. Solomon is getting a new studio, bigger than Newman’s. The six-foot-five host prompted many MPs to comment, “I didn’t know he was so tall.” No name has been announced for the new show but it will have “. . . with Evan Solomon” in it. Meanwhile, over in the CTV corner of the foyer, Power Play with Tom Clark has new lights that do not give off heat. That means MPs sweating in Tom Clark’s chairs can no longer blame the equipment.

Dion seeks space

Much chatter over the summer that former Grit leader Stéphane Dion wouldn’t be seeking another term. On the first day back Dion told Capital Diary he plans to run. He’s even been trying to find a campaign office but it’s been tough. That’s because, he says, upcoming municipal elections in Montreal mean the good spots are already taken.

Her new flip

Michael Ignatieff’s wife, Zsuzsanna Zsohar, has a hot new hairstyle with a bit more flip to it. It looks as if she’s getting ready to move into 24 Sussex since her coif resembles Laureen Harper’s, albeit a slightly darker version.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/mitchel-raphael-on-why-the-ndp-hates-all-the-applause/feed/11How I spent my summer vacationhttp://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/how-i-spent-my-summer-vacation/
http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/how-i-spent-my-summer-vacation/#commentsThu, 03 Sep 2009 12:00:20 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=79070What do famous Canadians—including Harper, Layton and Crosby—do when it gets hot? They don their shorts and hit the dock.

]]>Stephen Harper, leader of Her Majesty’s loyal opposition, talks to Evan Solomon on the eve of Canada’s 38th Parliament.

First of all, I can’t forget my first responsibility – which is to be the Leader of the Opposition and that’s to provide an alternative government. We’ve always said we’ll support the government when they do things that we can accept … but in general my obligation is to provide an Opposition. It’s the government’s obligation to look really to the third parties to get the support to govern … Well there are lots of things that could bring the government down, but my opposition can not bring the government down. The government can only be brought down because it alienates several parties in the House. And the first obligation in this Parliament, if the government wants to govern, it has to come to Parliament and it has to show that it can get the support of the majority of members, through the Throne Speech, through legislation, and through budget and supply, and the government to this point has made no effort to do that, but that’s its first obligation … We’ll support the government on issues if it’s essential to the country but our primary responsibility is not to prop up the government, our responsibility is to provide an opposition and an alternative government for Parliament and for Canadians. What the government has to do, if it wants to govern for any length of time, is it must appeal primarily to the third parties in the House of Commons to get them to support it.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/five-years-ago/feed/9Your tax dollars on the movehttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/your-tax-dollars-on-the-move/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/your-tax-dollars-on-the-move/#respondWed, 15 Jul 2009 22:09:40 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=70897CBC correspondents move all around the circle. I’ve been a fan of Evan Solomon’s since Shift magazine. He will do well here if both he and the network see his…

]]>CBC correspondents move all around the circle. I’ve been a fan of Evan Solomon’s since Shift magazine. He will do well here if both he and the network see his show as a chance to dig deeply into all the ways Canadians are actually governed, or could be, and not — as too many people saw his Sunday show — as an excuse to cover something, anything, please God anything, except Ottawa politics. The CBC sometimes has a hard time with this, so: You have a lot of other shows that don’t cover Ottawa politics. Your Ottawa politics show should probably cover Ottawa politics.

Terry Milewski, in the meantime, is a blessing. He cannot be bullied by Conservative or Liberal — ask Peter Donolo — and one underappreciated thing he has done again and again and again in Vancouver is to jump onto the back of a complex, significant story; sink his teeth in up to the gums; and cover the damned thing with passion, humour, and a sense of justice, for years. I would say, as a parallel to Evan’s case, that Terry will do well here if his bosses let him follow stories here in the same way, but I do believe they couldn’t stop him if they tried.

And hey, David Common: Get in one last dinner at Le Procope before they haul you out of there.